Who allegedly leaked Horner investigation emails and whatsap

[moorx]

Durzel said:

What's the answer then? What would you define as independent? Someone has to pay for the time of the people involved, so who would do that when anyone with a vested interest is on one side or the other?

If they'd come down the other way, would you have deemed it independent then?

Seems like there's no possible way to do any review, when an "unsatisfactory" outcome will lead people to decide that they're marking their own homework, as seems to be the case here.

Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 12th March 11:04

Maybe be honest, then, and describe it as an 'internal' review, rather than 'independent' or 'impartial'?

[Durzel]

moorx said:

Durzel said:

What's the answer then? What would you define as independent? Someone has to pay for the time of the people involved, so who would do that when anyone with a vested interest is on one side or the other?

If they'd come down the other way, would you have deemed it independent then?

Seems like there's no possible way to do any review, when an "unsatisfactory" outcome will lead people to decide that they're marking their own homework, as seems to be the case here.

Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 12th March 11:04

Maybe be honest, then, and describe it as an 'internal' review, rather than 'independent' or 'impartial'?

Who is to say it wasn't independent though? That's my point.

Someone who disagrees with the findings casting doubt on the independence is an impossible argument to disprove, because it is at its heart based on biases and speculation.

I sense those who feel it wasn't independent wouldn't be complaining if they'd found him culpable. They'd probably labour the point it was independent then, if anyone came at it from the other end (i.e. supportive of Horner, questioning the findings). Because they came down in his favour it's suddenly "welllll how independent were they though, really?"

[anonymous_user]

Durzel said:

Who is to say it wasn't independent though? That's my point.

Someone who disagrees with the findings casting doubt on the independence is an impossible argument to disprove, because it is at its heart based on biases and speculation.

I sense those who feel it wasn't independent wouldn't be complaining if they'd found him culpable. They'd probably labour the point it was independent then, if anyone came at it from the other end (i.e. supportive of Horner, questioning the findings). Because they came down in his favour it's suddenly "welllll how independent were they though, really?"

there already was/is an independent option ...it's called an ET

it's RB/ Horner that put that extra QC hurdle in, not the PA

[MissChief]

anonymous_user said:

Durzel said:

Who is to say it wasn't independent though? That's my point.

Someone who disagrees with the findings casting doubt on the independence is an impossible argument to disprove, because it is at its heart based on biases and speculation.

I sense those who feel it wasn't independent wouldn't be complaining if they'd found him culpable. They'd probably labour the point it was independent then, if anyone came at it from the other end (i.e. supportive of Horner, questioning the findings). Because they came down in his favour it's suddenly "welllll how independent were they though, really?"

there already was/is an independent option ...it's called an ET

it's RB/ Horner that put that extra QC hurdle in, not the PA

Apparently Horner was as good as out the door, with Press releases already typed up but Horner activated a clause that he'd had inserted into his contract that he was entitled to an external review or investigation. Then this lawyer, either employed directly by Yoovidhya or Yoovidhya had him on retainer for any UK legal work was brought in. Do you really think said Lawyer was told to be impartial and find out the truth regardless of the outcome, or was quietly advised to ensure Horner stayed on, being that he was Yoovidhya's ally in all of the machinations and power struggles for control of Red Bull and Red Bull Racing?

[Evercross]

MissChief said:

Apparently Horner was as good as out the door, with Press releases already typed up....

..which doesn't at all imply that it was a summary coup to deal with a road-block to a surreptitious plan. No eager jumping of the gun there at all...

MissChief said:

...but Horner activated a clause that he'd had inserted into his contract that he was entitled to an external review or investigation.

...and why not when you are working in a high stakes environment when not everyone is a good faith player acting in the interests of the team (which you cannot accuse Horner of with regards to Red Bull Racing, seeing as it was his life's work and he was actively negotiating to prevent it being broken up or sold off to the highest bidder). If nothing else it proves what a canny operator he is.

Even the best F1 team managers (heck, some of the founders of some of the biggest brands in the world) have found themselves being ousted from their own project because of some small detail or act of faith and trust that was leveraged against them. Ron Dennis, Ross Brawn.....

[Durzel]

MissChief said:

anonymous_user said:

Durzel said:

Who is to say it wasn't independent though? That's my point.

Someone who disagrees with the findings casting doubt on the independence is an impossible argument to disprove, because it is at its heart based on biases and speculation.

I sense those who feel it wasn't independent wouldn't be complaining if they'd found him culpable. They'd probably labour the point it was independent then, if anyone came at it from the other end (i.e. supportive of Horner, questioning the findings). Because they came down in his favour it's suddenly "welllll how independent were they though, really?"

there already was/is an independent option ...it's called an ET

it's RB/ Horner that put that extra QC hurdle in, not the PA

Apparently Horner was as good as out the door, with Press releases already typed up but Horner activated a clause that he'd had inserted into his contract that he was entitled to an external review or investigation. Then this lawyer, either employed directly by Yoovidhya or Yoovidhya had him on retainer for any UK legal work was brought in. Do you really think said Lawyer was told to be impartial and find out the truth regardless of the outcome, or was quietly advised to ensure Horner stayed on, being that he was Yoovidhya's ally in all of the machinations and power struggles for control of Red Bull and Red Bull Racing?

I've got no love for Horner but how could you possibly know this to be able to state it as basically what happened? Anyone can take a negative reading and throw out a load of basically unproveable conjecture - doesn't mean it's true or what happened. Unless you were inside the process I don't know how you could know any of this to a certainty.

All I'm seeing is "apparentlys" and "my understanding is XYZ" - i.e. no actual proof of anything.

Sadly (?) for the general public I suspect the full and undisputed truth will never be known. All we've seen so far is unsubstantiated material with an agenda behind it, with people predisposed to disliking Horner choosing their own truth based on it.

I do wonder if "they" had been a bit more surgical about their attacks on him then perhaps they would have had more success, though I still think it would have been a Herculean task to oust him given what he has delivered for RBR. As it is - leaking selective WhatsApp to the grid is about as grubby as the subject matter itself, and imo didn't help their cause - particularly since as it was unsubstantiated the media couldn't report on it effectively.

They tried, they failed. I think that a team principal who has survived in their job in F1 for 20 years is going to need some real firepower to remove. Horner hasn't lasted as long as he has running RBR by being timid or weak.